[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Another absolute. I don’t know if science will know everything. I think it’s highly unlikely science will solve everything. If you are saying science knows all, especially at this stage in human history, then you are just as bad as those who fill gaps in knowledge with God.[/quote]Until you solve the epistemological question absolutely EVERYTHING, including every scientific discovery for the rest of history, is just whistlin in the dark.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are you guys smoking?
Gravity is art of universe. Creation of universe can’t star with part of universe.
You guys are worse than the religious literalists trying to talk circles around bible verses.[/quote]
Clearly your understanding of Newtonian and quantum physics is even worse than mine. There’s a whole lot of weird guys in bow ties who write pages of funny symbols and numbers and shit who disagree with you. All of them can kick your arse in mathematics/physics. Don’t argue with them. Without them you wouldn’t have the internet, television, radio or even electricity.[/quote]
No, I have a decent understanding. And a lot of the smart guys agree with me. I studed quantum and modern physics at one of the top engineering schools in the nation. All “creation” theories start with something. Starting with something isn’t the begining.
[/quote]
How are you defining ‘nothing’? Remember space and time didn’t exist prior to the big bang and the spontaneous matter/anit-matter creation theories posit that matter/energy/anti-matter/dark energy didn’t exist either. If space, time, matter/energy, anti-matter/dark energy didn’t exist what did? Also keep in mind that gravity is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime(which didn’t exist). Please explain.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Please explain.[/quote]Go ahead.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
What are you guys smoking?
Gravity is art of universe. Creation of universe can’t star with part of universe.
You guys are worse than the religious literalists trying to talk circles around bible verses.[/quote]
Clearly your understanding of Newtonian and quantum physics is even worse than mine. There’s a whole lot of weird guys in bow ties who write pages of funny symbols and numbers and shit who disagree with you. All of them can kick your arse in mathematics/physics. Don’t argue with them. Without them you wouldn’t have the internet, television, radio or even electricity.[/quote]
The general public needs to be cautious when theoretical physicist throw the word nothing around as they actually often mean a sea of virtual particles existing in a space time manifold.
If you don’t want to take my word for it you can watch this youtube video I posted in my thread.
Noted CHRISTIAN MATHEMATICIAN John Lennox is talking about a vacuum and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Not about the pre-Planck time singularity that was the seed of the big bang.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Please explain.[/quote]Go ahead.
[/quote]
Now you’re getting to the bit I don’t understand. What I do understand is that some weird guys in bow ties and some guy in a wheelchair with a motor neurone disease claim that in the absence of matter/energy, anti-matter/dark energy and prior to the beginning of spacetime, it is perfectly possible that the aforementioned things were created spontaneously. Want some links to a whole bunch of funny symbols and numbers and shit?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Please explain.[/quote]Go ahead.
[/quote]
Now you’re getting to the bit I don’t understand. What I do understand is that some weird guys in bow ties and some guy in a wheelchair with a motor neurone disease claim that in the absence of matter/energy, anti-matter/dark energy and prior to the beginning of spacetime, it is perfectly possible that the aforementioned things were created spontaneously. Want some links to a whole bunch of funny symbols and numbers and shit?[/quote]
Hawking is a genius. That is tough to argue with. But he is not infallible, and he hasn’t proved this claim in any way.
He has, in fact, been making a number of questionable arguments in recent years. This is not to belittle the man’s accomplishments…he has forgotten more than I will ever know. but his word is not dogma.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Please explain.[/quote]Go ahead.
[/quote]
Now you’re getting to the bit I don’t understand. What I do understand is that some weird guys in bow ties and some guy in a wheelchair with a motor neurone disease claim that in the absence of matter/energy, anti-matter/dark energy and prior to the beginning of spacetime, it is perfectly possible that the aforementioned things were created spontaneously. Want some links to a whole bunch of funny symbols and numbers and shit?[/quote]
Hawking is a genius. That is tough to argue with. But he is not infallible, and he hasn’t proved this claim in any way.
He has, in fact, been making a number of questionable arguments in recent years. This is not to belittle the man’s accomplishments…he has forgotten more than I will ever know. but his word is not dogma.[/quote]
Agreed. But his word sounds more plausible than the world being 6,000-years-old, Noah building a raft and putting two of every animal in it, Jesus turning water into wine and rising from the dead etc.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:<<< Please explain.[/quote]Go ahead.
[/quote]
Now you’re getting to the bit I don’t understand. What I do understand is that some weird guys in bow ties and some guy in a wheelchair with a motor neurone disease claim that in the absence of matter/energy, anti-matter/dark energy and prior to the beginning of spacetime, it is perfectly possible that the aforementioned things were created spontaneously. Want some links to a whole bunch of funny symbols and numbers and shit?[/quote]
Hawking is a genius. That is tough to argue with. But he is not infallible, and he hasn’t proved this claim in any way.
He has, in fact, been making a number of questionable arguments in recent years. This is not to belittle the man’s accomplishments…he has forgotten more than I will ever know. but his word is not dogma.[/quote]
Agreed. But his word sounds more plausible than the world being 6,000-years-old, Noah building a raft and putting two of every animal in it, Jesus turning water into wine and rising from the dead etc.[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more. Though, most peoples’ words are more plausible than that nonsense.
I keep my atheism to myself.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
I keep my atheism to myself. [/quote]
Not sure if you’re joking but I actually agree with you. We should keep it to ourselves.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]belligerent wrote:
I keep my atheism to myself. [/quote]
Not sure if you’re joking but I actually agree with you. We should keep it to ourselves.[/quote]
I used to feel this way, but as I look back on my life, I find I am much happier as an atheist. I wish now that other atheists would have been more outspoken, allowing me to find this better place sooner. That’s why I’m now prepared to be more open about it.
I understand the viewpoints of the atheist/agnostic camp in this thread, but I’m curious about the theist camp. Do you think it is possible that more than one God exists? Also, what is your definition of God? Is it possible that the Creator was also created by another Creator?
[quote]Scott aka Rice wrote:
I understand the viewpoints of the atheist/agnostic camp in this thread, but I’m curious about the theist camp. Do you think it is possible that more than one God exists? Also, what is your definition of God? Is it possible that the Creator was also created by another Creator?[/quote]
Should that be the subject of a new thread?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]talldude wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
[/quote]
The existence of god requires that he spontaneously appeared at some point…you cannot argue that the universe must have been created by a god unless you also accept that by the same logic god must have been created.[/quote]
No, definitionalaly that is impossible. That which is uncaused must necessarily sit outside the causal chain. What makes the rules cannot be defined by them. [/quote]
And yet the universe couldn’t possibly be uncaused.[/quote]
If you have an argument or evidence to the contrary, bring it.[/quote]
If you have any evidence for a space genie who poofed the universe into existence, bring it.[/quote]
I never made any claims about any genies, nor that the universe was poofed. And I asked first. Answer me and I’ll answer you. You should know exactly what my answers will be. I have not changed anything.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think this is a good explanation of the definition @ 2:25
[/quote]
Nah, he screws it up. You’re as is he, is confusing faith with ‘religious faith’. Faith is simply believing something without absolute proof. Which accounts for most of what we consider knowledge. I too have sufficient reason for believing that God does exist. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. That’s not the same as my religious faith which really delves in to the nature of this God. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. They’re not my arguments mind you, I didn’t make it up, but I use them and I am hopelessly predictable on the matter.
I use cosmology. If you ask I’ll post a link, complete with counter arguments and then I defend it from there. I have engaged in this conversation so many times I can’t even count. Now Kant’s view of ontology is an interesting one I have been paying more attention to lately. It is sort of an ontological argument but he hybrids cosmology into it, sort of like a proof that his ontology is right. But it is an interesting take…but still at it’s core basically cosmology.
[/quote]
What is your religious affiliation? [/quote]
Catholic. My arguments for the existence of of God are based on logic and reason. My understanding on who He is, is rooted in my faith. Understand though, that that is not the only way. We don’t consider ourselves any better than anybody else. We feel blessed in many ways, but that’s it. Those blessings are not to provide pride or arrogance, it’s personal.[/quote]
Do you have evidence for any of the specific claims the Bible makes?
Do you believe the world is 6000-10,000 years old?
[/quote]
No absolutely not. I believe that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that the universe to the best of our knowledge is 13 - 15 billion years old.
Aboutbiblical claims, if you can be more specific, I’ll answer. The bible isn’t ‘a book’ is a bunch of books. Each with their own purpose and meaning. Some more some less meaningful, but all say something.
I’ll give you the one claim of the bible I believe with out any doubt… I believe in one God and father. I believe, for some reason, he is interested in us above all creation. But I don’t know why.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
- Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
- The universe is in motion.
- Therefore, the universe was set in motion by an external force.
----] That external force, I call God.
[/quote]
-
Flawed. No ‘external’ force is necessary. Numerous theories posit spontaneous matter/energy creation.
-
Yes.
-
Flawed. See 1.
For circumstantial evidence of the existence of God/intelligent design see T Vixen 14’s latest addition.[/quote]
Key word: theories.
As I have repeatedly stated in this thread and others, there are logical proofs for God’s existence which are strong if not bulletproof.
I have yet to be convinced that an uncaused event has ever or could ever occur.[/quote]
What theories? I don’t know of a single one.[/quote]
I too am curious as to what specific “theories” are being spoken of here.[/quote]
I know hawking has one where the universe could come from gravity, but that wouldn’t be the beginning, because gravity would have to exist first.[/quote]
Correct. Gravity exists because of something. Hawking has definitely moved over to the atheistic side of the equation. I don’t know if he still considers himself a theist as he did previously. I think he got lazy, because that does not at all prove ‘a universe with out the need for God’. At least Krauss is attempting to prove something from nothing, but he to fails. The problem with ‘something from nothing’ is you cannot even discuss nothing, the second you do, it becomes ‘something’.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I can say nothing here. I am speechless. What ever twists and turns you face, I hope they turn out well. Peace be upon you SMH, in what ever form it comes.[/quote]
Thanks man, and right back at you. Though we frequently find ourselves at odds on the subject, in the end I think we see eye to eye more than one would think.[/quote]
I agree. I don’t mind good hard discussions, though. So I say we keep at it. Let me know if you ever come to the ATL, we could do some lunch and bullshit about this stuff…I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours… 
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I think this is a good explanation of the definition @ 2:25
[/quote]
Nah, he screws it up. You’re as is he, is confusing faith with ‘religious faith’. Faith is simply believing something without absolute proof. Which accounts for most of what we consider knowledge. I too have sufficient reason for believing that God does exist. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. That’s not the same as my religious faith which really delves in to the nature of this God. I can provide the arguments, defend them and not lose. They’re not my arguments mind you, I didn’t make it up, but I use them and I am hopelessly predictable on the matter.
I use cosmology. If you ask I’ll post a link, complete with counter arguments and then I defend it from there. I have engaged in this conversation so many times I can’t even count. Now Kant’s view of ontology is an interesting one I have been paying more attention to lately. It is sort of an ontological argument but he hybrids cosmology into it, sort of like a proof that his ontology is right. But it is an interesting take…but still at it’s core basically cosmology.
[/quote]
What is your religious affiliation? [/quote]
Catholic. My arguments for the existence of of God are based on logic and reason. My understanding on who He is, is rooted in my faith. Understand though, that that is not the only way. We don’t consider ourselves any better than anybody else. We feel blessed in many ways, but that’s it. Those blessings are not to provide pride or arrogance, it’s personal.[/quote]
Do you have evidence for any of the specific claims the Bible makes?
Do you believe the world is 6000-10,000 years old?
[/quote]
No absolutely not. I believe that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that the universe to the best of our knowledge is 13 - 15 billion years old.
Aboutbiblical claims, if you can be more specific, I’ll answer. The bible isn’t ‘a book’ is a bunch of books. Each with their own purpose and meaning. Some more some less meaningful, but all say something.
I’ll give you the one claim of the bible I believe with out any doubt… I believe in one God and father. I believe, for some reason, he is interested in us above all creation. But I don’t know why. [/quote]
Alright fair enough.
I’ve heard atheists bring up the Biblical passage condoning slavery, what are the Catholics view on the verse? Do they accept the fact God condone’s slavery?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
It is true for Newtonian physics, but not cosmology.[/quote]
Cosmology ostensibly adheres to the principles of physics unfailingly and eternally. “Cosmology” is, after all, just a word we use to describe the comings and goings of big rocks and balls of fire in space. They operate under the governance of physical law in the same way that pool balls do.[/quote]
Well when I discuss ‘Cosmology’ I am really referring to ‘Cosmological Argument’ and it’s many forms. Scientific Cosmology is the empirical scientific branch of this argument. Scientists are either trying to prove the philosophical cosmology right or wrong, though my experience tell me, most try to prove it wrong by attacking it’s premises or it’s conclusion.
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
- Nothing is in motion without being set in motion by an external force.
[/quote]
I don’t consider the movement of electrons around the nucleus of an atom to set in motion by an external force. I believe your premise is flawed. It is true for Newtonian physics, but not cosmology.[/quote]
Ok, what set them in motion then?